Re: Why will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 31/10/19 20:23, address@hidden wrote:
> RMS:
> Could you share your thoughts, if any, of why no one will sue GrSecurity
> ("Open Source Security" (a Pennsylvania company)) for their blatant
> violation of section 6 of version 2 of the GNU General Public License?
> 
> Both regarding their GCC plugins and their Linux-Kernel patch which is a
> non-separable derivative work?
> 
> They distribute such under a no-redistribution agreement to paying
> customers (the is the only distribution they do). If the customer
> redistributes the derivative works they are punished.

IANAL, but see after my signature an email about a similar case.
Unfortunately some pieces of that story are lost to bitrot and broken
links, but the text quoted there is from a former GPL compliance manager
at the FSF.

tl;dr, the GPL does not forbid GrSecurity from rejecting money from
people that have exercised their rights under the GPL.  And anyway, if
anything it would be a breach of contract law (similar to some episodes
involving gay marriage) and not copyright.

Should a future GPLv4 cover this case?  Is it even possible?  I have no
idea and this is off topic anyway, so let's all cut this thread short.

Paolo

> Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.org.freifunk.wlanware:251
> 
> [...]
> 
> Subject: [WRT54G] FSF fully aproces the Sveasoft subscription model
> Date: Freitag 18 Juni 2004 00:47
> From: "sveasoft" <james.ewing-yJk5bNGmrfNWk0Htik3J/address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> 
> The final word on the Sveasoft subscription model has been rendered
> by the FSF. The FSF concludes that the Sveasoft model is fully
> compliant with the GNU license stipulations.
> 
> Transcript:
>>   Okay, so here is the Sveasoft business model, as I understand
>>   it:
>>
>>     1. Sveasoft produces GPL'ed code which runs on a GNU/Linux based
>>    router.
>>
>>     2. Sveasoft distributes pre-releases of their software on a
>>    subscription basis and provides priority support to the subscribers.
>>
>>     3. The pre-releases are offered under the GPL and subscribers
>>     are entitled to distribute them publicly if desired.
>>
>>     4. If a subscriber *does* redistribute the pre-release code
>>     publicly, before it becomes a production release, they are
>>     considered to have "forked" the code and do not receive future
>>     pre-releases under the subscription program.
>>
>>     5. Once a pre-release works its way through the testing
>>     program and becomes a production release, it is made available under
>>     the GPL for public download, both "free-as-in-speech" and "free-as-in-
>>     beer".
>>
>>   James, please step in here if I've missed anything, or if I
>>   haven't accurately characterized some piece of the above.
>>
>>   I look forward to getting the FSF compliance lab's feedback on
>>   Sveasoft's business model.  Thanks for your help!
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> I would just underscore that whenever we distribute binaries they
>> are *always* accompanied by the source code.
>>
>> Subscribers are free to do whatever they like with the
>> pre-releases with the proviso that if they distribute it publicly
>> we are not responsible for support and they need to develop the
>> code further themselves from that point forward.
>
> I see no problems with this model. If the software is licensed
> under the GPL, and you distribute the source code with the binaries (as
> opposed to making an offer for source code), you are under no obligation to
> supply future releases to anyone.
> 
> Please be clear that the subscription is for the support and
> distribution and not for a license.
>
> Peter Brown
> GPL Compliance Manager
> Free Software Foundation